10% is the minimum- generally the majority will need to be military-age men. Japan's kind of a special case because nukes changed the game; look what happened to Japanese culture in the wake of those. Still, if you're willing to pop a few nukes, you could get the same result with lower overall casualties.

The point is that war's not clean, and unless we're willing to get our hands really bloody, it's a bad choice. Probably a bad choice even then, but if you're aware of the costs going in and that unless you pay those costs that success is impossible, maybe we could see some alternatives on the table.

Cyclometh:Unless the US is willing to commit to the kind of scale of warfare that we saw in WWII- utter devastation on a massive scale and concomitant casualties, we're just not going to have the results people seem to think we will.

In order to successfully liberate the Iraqi people, we should have killed them all. Thanks for your insight.

jaytkay:In order to successfully liberate the Iraqi people, we should have killed them all. Thanks for your insight.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that we could never have "liberated" anything or anyone unless we were willing to kill enough people to completely destroy their culture and society. The choice to go into Iraq was the wrong one because the cost of achieving the victory conditions was never considered and could never have been paid.

I'm not arguing that we should have killed more people in Iraq. I'm saying that if you look at history, it should have been clear that the only way to achieve the stated goal was to do so. And that maybe knowing that we shouldn't have tried.

The economy absorbs indirect costs more effectively over the other commodities I purchase. Yes, other costs go up, but when gas goes from $3.75 a gallon to $6.50 a gallon (just to give some numbers), my transportation costs don't go up by that much, nor do my other costs spike as high.

Besides which, if I drove a gas-using vehicle, I'd still be paying extra for the gas as well as additional costs as other goods go up in price. So I'm still ahead of the game.

That would really be the best thing for this country in the long run. Can you imagine the investment in alternative energies if fossil fuel costs tripled? A solar panel on every house, new nuc facilities would be built, it would finally be profitable to collect the massive amount of natural gas that now is just burned in the field. Hell, we'd be energy independent within 5 years and could be totally green within 20. To bad the politicians don't have the guts to let it happen.

Millions of people chased from their homes as an authoritarian government composed of hard-line religious fundamentalists seizes huge swaths of territory in a country recently controlled by our own military in a vicious ~5 year insurgency? "Meh"

jaytkay:Cyclometh: Unless the US is willing to commit to the kind of scale of warfare that we saw in WWII- utter devastation on a massive scale and concomitant casualties, we're just not going to have the results people seem to think we will.

In order to successfully liberate the Iraqi people, we should have killed them all. Thanks for your insight.

BigLuca:hasty ambush: Well then Obama gets his wish, why are y'all biatchin?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 333x400]

That would really be the best thing for this country in the long run. Can you imagine the investment in alternative energies if fossil fuel costs tripled? A solar panel on every house, new nuc facilities would be built, it would finally be profitable to collect the massive amount of natural gas that now is just burned in the field. Hell, we'd be energy independent within 5 years and could be totally green within 20. To bad the politicians don't have the guts to let it happen.

"Know what? We tried. We farking tried. It's come to the point that the United States has two options now...one, we turn Iraq into a glass parking lot, but we're not doing that. Our only other option is to bring everyone home. That's what we're doing. I'm sorry for the people that sided with us, but we honestly can't afford to police your country anymore, especially when a lot of the population sides with power-hungry assholes who are smart enough to make race and religion their bread and butter. If that's what you want, that's what you get.

"I get it, WE get it. You don't want us here. We're leaving. Good luck, you'll need it."

Iraq was under the power of a greedy dictator for years, gas prices were cheap and stable ($1.29-1.39 from the 80s - early 2000s)We took over Iraq, gas prices went up to unprecedented highs (remember, most gas pumps were, by design, incapable of registering more than $1.99 a gallon?)Iraq achieved "independence," gas prices stayed up.Iraq has issues again, gas prices go up.Something doesn't quite add up here.

As far as the yahoos taking over cities there, there are relatively few roads between cities. As the "militants" are a bunch of towelheads riding around in Toyota pickups, why can't we, or the Iraqi army for that matter, just bomb or blockade the main highways leading into Baghdad? If the militants can't get there they can't take anything over. Blast 'em into the stone age like we did to Saddam's army when they were fleeing Kuwait during Desert Storm.

Better yet, go high tech and use an EMP weapon to disable the pickups!

Oil prices are part of a big game being played by rich assholes. They reflect the emotions of investors and not the actual state of the world.

The US imports over double the amount of petroleum from Canada than it does from the next highest source - Saudi Arabia. Iraq doesn't even factor into the numbers. Only about 13% of America's oil actually comes from the Middle East.

People have this impression that all the oil comes from the ME, and that if some Saudi or Iraqi guy has a bad day he can fark over the entire country with a phone call. That is exaggerated. I would say people should be more worried about gas prices when a Canadian hockey team loses a game, or when moose stampedes damage the oil facilities.

destrip:Iraq was under the power of a greedy dictator for years, gas prices were cheap and stable ($1.29-1.39 from the 80s - early 2000s)We took over Iraq, gas prices went up to unprecedented highs (remember, most gas pumps were, by design, incapable of registering more than $1.99 a gallon?)Iraq achieved "independence," gas prices stayed up.Iraq has issues again, gas prices go up.Something doesn't quite add up here.

As far as the yahoos taking over cities there, there are relatively few roads between cities. As the "militants" are a bunch of towelheads riding around in Toyota pickups, why can't we, or the Iraqi army for that matter, just bomb or blockade the main highways leading into Baghdad? If the militants can't get there they can't take anything over. Blast 'em into the stone age like we did to Saddam's army when they were fleeing Kuwait during Desert Storm.

Better yet, go high tech and use an EMP weapon to disable the pickups!

Pattuq:Oil prices are part of a big game being played by rich assholes. They reflect the emotions of investors and not the actual state of the world.

The US imports over double the amount of petroleum from Canada than it does from the next highest source - Saudi Arabia. Iraq doesn't even factor into the numbers. Only about 13% of America's oil actually comes from the Middle East.

People have this impression that all the oil comes from the ME, and that if some Saudi or Iraqi guy has a bad day he can fark over the entire country with a phone call. That is exaggerated. I would say people should be more worried about gas prices when a Canadian hockey team loses a game, or when moose stampedes damage the oil facilities.

Gas prices go too high, people quit using as much, demand and prices go down. Demand stays up, Saudis open up the taps little after a call from the US, and Strategic Oil Reserve lets go of a little, prices come down. Destroying the world economy with too high of fuel prices is not going to happen.

You're technically correct (the best kind?) but failing to take into account that our refineries- which produce gasoline- are not typically set up or designed to refine the type of oil we produce domestically.

We export it because we can't refine it cheaply here. We could retool the infrastructure to do so but that comes with its own costs.

So for now we're still very much dependent on oil from foreign sources for our fuels.

RanDomino:Nemosomen: "If Baghdad falls" is a mighty big "if." ISIS holds Tikrit? Does that city support the current regime, or were they more supportive of Saddam Hussein al Tikriti's regime?

Baghdad might not fall, but it might need to be renamed "Mogadishu North".

It definitely won't fall. ISIS only has a few thousand men and they're overstretched already. The reason all the other cities "fell" is because a significantly larger (30K soldiers) and better equipped (tanks, air power) Iraqi security force was also majority Sunni, and not the least bit interested in fighting to support a corrupt and sectarian shiate government in Baghdad. (Imagine that those wacky Tea Party "we're gonna go arrest Obama" movements was making its way through Texas: the Texas National Guard would be far more likely to clear the road to DC for them than they would be to fight them.)

On the other hand, Baghdad is in a majority Shia area, and the able-bodied Shia men there will have no reluctance to defend the city vigorously. Ultimately, we're going to wind up with the sort of Sunni/Shia partitioning that we should've done in the first place

On the plus side, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Mexico can ease any drops in Saudi production. OPEC is weaker than it used to be for this reason. Iran might be willing to produce and export more, possibly Venezuela and Nigeria might cheat a bit, Russia will do as it pleases for fun and profit.

Not shown: China. It can run its production on coal and increasingly solar, wind, gas, and nuclear power so it can throw in its massive weight to prevent its best customers from slipping into recession at tremendous risk and cost to itself. Chin is expected to become the largest global economy in the world this year or next at the latest.

Uzzah:On the other hand, Baghdad is in a majority Shia area, and the able-bodied Shia men there will have no reluctance to defend the city vigorously. Ultimately, we're going to wind up with the sort of Sunni/Shia partitioning that we should've done in the first place

You seem knowledgeable, so let me ask you a question. What are the odds Iran would get involved? I mean, if the Sunni uprising actually did threaten Baghdad, wouldn't they step in?

Harper must be rubbing his pudgy white hands together with glee, though. Higher oil prices are great for Alberta and that is pretty much all he cares about except the Arctic, which will eventually replace Alberta's conventional oil and high cost non-conventional oil. He's an economist. A right-wing economist. A right-wing economist with the political instincts of a ruthless XIXth century plutocrat.

BigLuca:Uzzah:On the other hand, Baghdad is in a majority Shia area, and the able-bodied Shia men there will have no reluctance to defend the city vigorously. Ultimately, we're going to wind up with the sort of Sunni/Shia partitioning that we should've done in the first place

You seem knowledgeable, so let me ask you a question. What are the odds Iran would get involved? I mean, if the Sunni uprising actually did threaten Baghdad, wouldn't they step in?

oh_please:I really, really wish Obama would step up to the podium and say:

"Know what? We tried. We farking tried. It's come to the point that the United States has two options now...one, we turn Iraq into a glass parking lot, but we're not doing that. Our only other option is to bring everyone home. That's what we're doing. I'm sorry for the people that sided with us, but we honestly can't afford to police your country anymore, especially when a lot of the population sides with power-hungry assholes who are smart enough to make race and religion their bread and butter. If that's what you want, that's what you get.

"I get it, WE get it. You don't want us here. We're leaving. Good luck, you'll need it."

Pattuq:Oil prices are part of a big game being played by rich assholes. They reflect the emotions of investors and not the actual state of the world.

The US imports over double the amount of petroleum from Canada than it does from the next highest source - Saudi Arabia. Iraq doesn't even factor into the numbers. Only about 13% of America's oil actually comes from the Middle East.

People have this impression that all the oil comes from the ME, and that if some Saudi or Iraqi guy has a bad day he can fark over the entire country with a phone call. That is exaggerated. I would say people should be more worried about gas prices when a Canadian hockey team loses a game, or when moose stampedes damage the oil facilities.

You do realize that the reason for this is that oil is fungible, right? If the price of oil in Saudi Arabia plummets, we would start buying it from there, so Canada would then lower its price to whatever Saudi Arabia was charging, plus the shipping differential (Theoretically - Oil is not perfectly fungible, and diversification of source is advantageous - which is why we don't import 100% of our oil from Canada).